[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10070-S10080]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, 
   AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 CONTINUED

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, pretty soon we will be coming to the 
last round of amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations 
bill. When he is on the floor, I will thank, publicly and personally, 
the distinguished Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby. We certainly worked 
on a bipartisan basis to move this bill, to accomplish national 
objectives, and to respond to the compelling human and financial needs 
of our neighbors in the Gulf States. Moving this legislation has been 
enjoyable because there has been such a spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation. Senators have worked on their amendments. They have 
offered them jointly. In a few minutes, we will be voting on an 
amendment by Senator Snowe of Maine and John Kerry of Massachusetts to 
help small business, particularly, in relation to Katrina. That has 
been the example throughout.
  As the ranking member on this new subcommittee, I hope the spirit of 
the Senate, in moving forward on this bill, will be the spirit of the 
Senate all the time. We need more of that. We need more civility. We 
need more collegiality and more of that spirit of ``let's get it done'' 
and ``let's get it done together.''
  There were many issues that were new to me, at least the depth of the 
national problem. We are all familiar with Katrina. One of the things 
that came up was the whole methamphetamine issue, which seems to have 
the country in its grips, to listen to the Senators from North Dakota 
talk about what it means in a rural State, to listen to other Senators 
who have come in either with individual projects or with national 
issues. Again, in a spirit of bipartisanship, Senators Dayton and 
Chambliss came in with a request to restore over $200 million to fight 
this scourge that seems to be gripping people at all economic levels. 
The methamphetamine issue has reached epidemic levels. That bipartisan 
support added money to the budget and added resources for local 
communities.
  Another champion, of course, was the Senator from Washington, Ms. 
Cantwell. She offered an amendment for $20 million on the Hot Spot 
Program. Where are the real hotspots of meth? We worked with her to 
adopt that amendment. We thank her and particularly the Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Dayton, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for 
being strong advocates. Every other Senator came to me and said: We are 
glad this is in the bill.
  Senator Cantwell, focusing on the hotspots, sends vital Federal 
support to law enforcement officers and first responders who are on the 
frontlines of the meth epidemic. Actually, those crime fighters have a 
great friend in Senator Cantwell.
  We thank everyone who has helped move this legislation. We are 
looking forward to moving to final passage. We have two more 
amendments, and then we will move to final passage. Again, the spirit 
of the Senate has been wonderful. We are meeting real needs--whether it 
is Katrina, fighting the methamphetamine epidemic, providing weather 
services, and so on.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to a vote on or in relation to Snowe-Kerry amendment No. 1717, 
with no second-degree amendments in order prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SHELBY. For the information of my colleagues, we are now down to 
one or two outstanding issues. That is good news in the Senate on a 
Thursday afternoon. During the next vote, we will try to finalize those 
amendments. Senator Mikulski and I, the managers of the bill, have been 
working with everybody in the Senate to try to move the bill forward. 
It is our expectation that we will quickly proceed to passage of the 
bill. I, therefore, alert all Senators now that they should remain 
close to the Chamber, following this upcoming vote, hopefully for final 
passage.
  I yield to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, first of all, once again, we are coming 
now to the final aspects of this bill. We have been able to achieve 
this because of the wonderful bipartisan support that existed between 
Senator Shelby, myself, and our staffs. We want to thank them for doing 
that. I will thank them as we go into wrapup.
  Our colleagues, we thank them again for their cooperation in moving 
the amendments, working on a bipartisan basis. And now as we go to the 
Snowe-Kerry amendment and the vote, we ask Senators who have those 
outstanding amendments to consult with the floor and leadership staff, 
and ourselves as well, because we think we could have a vote--not 
promptly but expeditiously--after the conclusion of the Snowe-Kerry 
amendment.
  Again, I say to my colleagues to come, vote, stick around, let's work 
together, and we can finish our bill. People need this bill. It funds 
the FBI. It funds Katrina help. It funds the methamphetamine help about 
which we have been talking, and our very important Weather Service. 
There are so many provisions in it.
  I yield the floor and look forward to the vote.


                           Amendment No. 1717

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby], for Ms. Snowe, for 
     herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Vitter, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Talent, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1717.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Thursday, September 14, 
2005, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mr. SHELBY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1717.

[[Page S10071]]

  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 233 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Corzine
     Lott
     Thune
     Vitter
  The amendment (No. 1717) was agreed to.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                           Amendment No. 1695

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the pending business, I believe, is my 
original amendment. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say quickly I thank my colleagues, 
and I thank Senators Snowe and Landrieu and Vitter for their work on 
this amendment. I think the Senate has made a very important statement 
today about what can be done and what we need to do to respond 
immediately to the small business needs with respect to Katrina and 
people impacted across the country.
  This amendment details virtually everything in the Kerry-Landrieu 
amendment, from disaster loan deferments to financial assistance for 
small businesses and farmers struggling to afford the high prices of 
gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. It expands on assistance to 
small businesses that have SBA 504 loans for buildings or equipment, or 
for those who will need them. It includes agreed upon language to make 
sure the money is appropriated to carry out the assistance. And it 
retains a critical grant program to the states to get money into the 
hands of small businesses that need immediate access to capital to stay 
afloat until they get other more comprehensive loans or insurance 
reimbursements.
  For all the good this amendment will do, I am disappointed that two 
very important provisions were not included. I am against taking out 
the funding for the Federal government's largest small business loan 
program, the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program, that would reduce fees on 
borrowers and lenders. Even before the destruction of Hurricane Katrina 
and its impact on our economy, small businesses were struggling with 
higher insurance premiums, higher energy prices, and higher prices for 
capital because of rising interest rates. We should not be adding to 
their expenses by raising loan fees. As I said yesterday, according to 
a document from the Small Business Administration, since the 
Administration raised fees in that program, loans to Hispanics have 
declined by 14 percent. With Katrina causing problems well beyond the 
state lines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, 
those small businesses need relief too. We asked our colleagues, at the 
very least, to include language that would reduce fees if the SBA 
overcharges borrowers or lenders, or if there are excess 
appropriations. They would not agree. They also eliminated the 
provision that directed the SBA to assume payments for SBA 7(a) and 504 
loans that victims had before the Hurricane but cannot now pay. To help 
these business owners make ends meet, and to avoid defaults or worse, 
it is my hope that these small businesses will make use of the 
provision we put in the amendment that allows them to refinance 
existing business debt with low-cost SBA disaster loans.
  Hopefully, because this bill may well be tied up for a period of 
time, it may be possible to break this amendment out and add to it a 
couple of components that were not in it today.
  We hope to do that. We obviously will work with both sides to do it 
in the same bipartisan fashion.
  This morning Senator Landrieu met with some of the top members of the 
business community of New Orleans. They are very afraid for those small 
businesses that have to lease, contract, move, and they are afraid of 
losing for a long period of time, if not forever, the small business 
base of their community. What the Senate has done today is to address 
that need in a very realistic and helpful way. I thank my colleagues 
for doing so.
  With that stated, my original amendment, which we now combined into 
this one, is no longer necessary. I ask unanimous consent it be 
withdrawn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor, but first let me thank Senator Mikulski 
and Senator Shelby also for their long forbearance in this effort. I 
appreciate it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 1678

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I call up my amendment if it has not 
already been placed in order. It is amendment No 1678.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1678 is the regular order.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. This amendment is an attempt to apply an offer of 
financial relief to victims of Hurricane Katrina in very personal ways 
to answer the questions that hundreds of thousands of people in the 
gulf coast region are now asking themselves, by extending current 
programs or creating a couple of new ones.
  Let me be more specific. This amendment would say to folks who 
suffered this hardship that they can meet their immediate needs for 
housing and other assistance because we are going to waive the caps and 
State cost-sharing requirements under the Stafford Program. It would 
allow survivors of Katrina to cover rent or mortgage payments, if they 
are suffering financial hardship; that is, by reinstatement of the 
mortgage or rental program.
  It would extend the time that these people can apply for unemployment 
insurance to 90 days. It would impose a moratorium on obligations for 
paying student loans and other payments on Federal loans in the 
immediate aftermath of a hurricane. It would authorize people to take 
money out of their retirement plans to keep themselves going without 
having to pay a penalty. And it would extend and expand eligibility for 
food stamps and WIC programs.
  Finally, for victims of Hurricane Katrina and survivors living in the 
area of hardship, it would extend the bankruptcy protections under 
current law that would otherwise soon go out of effect with the 
adoption of the recent Bankruptcy Act.
  This is the stuff of enabling people to put their lives back 
together. It is very human, it is very personal, it is real, and it is 
very urgently needed.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?


                     Amendment No. 1706, Withdrawn

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, before we move to the vote on the 
amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, I ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw Bingaman amendment No. 1706.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.

[[Page S10072]]

  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Chair.
  I ask for regular order.


                           Amendment No. 1678

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending question is on Lieberman amendment 
No. 1678.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Lieberman 
amendment violates rule XVI.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, pursuant to the notice properly filed, 
I move to suspend the rule with respect to this amendment, No. 1678, 
and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Amendments Nos. 1716, 1724, as Modified, and 1725

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we have three additional amendments that 
have been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I send those amendments 
to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the amendments be 
considered and agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the 
table. This has been cleared with the distinguished Senator from 
Maryland.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, we have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendments were agreed to, as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1716

    (Purpose: To extend the provisions an expiring provision of the 
       Universal Service Antideficiency Temporary Suspension Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ------. EXTENSION OF UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND EXEMPTION 
                   FROM THE ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT.

       Section 302 of the Universal Service Antideficiency 
     Temporary Suspension Act is amended by striking ``December 
     31, 2005,'' each place it appears and inserting ``December 
     31, 2006,''.


                    AMENDMENT NO. 1724, as modified

         (Purpose: To reduce fees on loans to small businesses)

       At the end of title V, add the following:

     SEC. 5___. SMALL BUSINESS FEES.

       (a) Fees.--Section 7(a)(23) of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 636(a)(23)) is amended by striking subparagraph (C) 
     and inserting the following:
       ``(C) Lowering of fees.--
       ``(i) In general.--Subject to clauses (ii) and (iii)--

       ``(I) the Administrator may reduce fees paid by small 
     business borrowers and lenders under clauses (i) through (iv) 
     of paragraph (18)(A) and subparagraph (A) of this paragraph; 
     and
       ``(II) fees paid by small business borrowers and lenders 
     shall not be increased above the levels in effect on the date 
     of enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005.

       ``(ii) Determinations.--A reduction in fees under clause 
     (i) shall occur in any case in which the fees paid by all 
     small business borrowers and by lenders for guarantees under 
     this subsection, or the sum of such fees plus any amount 
     appropriated to carry out this subsection, as applicable, is 
     more than the amount necessary to equal the cost to the 
     Administration of making such guarantees.''.


                           AMENDMENT NO. 1725

   (Purpose: To provide additional funding for the Federal Bureau of 
  Investigation for processing of background checks for petitions and 
 applications pending before U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services)

       On page 121, line 19, after the semicolon insert ``of which 
     not less than $1,200,000 shall be for the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation for processing of background checks for 
     petitions and applications pending before U.S. Citizenship 
     and Immigration Services;''.


                           Amendment No. 1716

  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with Senator Inouye, co-
chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, to 
discuss amendment to safeguard the Universal Service Fund, or USF, the 
institution that allows rural and low-income Americans to obtain 
affordable telephone service, allows America's schools and libraries to 
provide Internet access to all segments of society through the E-Rate 
program, and permits rural health care providers to obtain 
telecommunications and Internet services at reduced rates. The concept 
of Universal Service has been with us nearly as long as the telephone 
itself, and this amendment today marks one key step in ensuring that 
this vital policy remains intact in the 21st Century.
  Before I go into the merits of the amendment, I want to assure my 
colleagues that this amendment touches upon an issue that has been in 
discussion for a long time. In fact, it is almost identical to 
legislation, S. 241, which I introduced early in the 109th Congress 
along with, Senator Rockefeller and the chairman and co-chairman of the 
Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, Senators Stevens and 
Inouye. A total of 41 co-sponsors are on the bill today. Countless 
telecommunications companies and educational organizations have also 
endorsed the bill. Moreover, the Senate Commerce Committee held a 
hearing this past spring to discuss the need for such legislation.
  I stand before you today offering this amendment because our time is 
running out. As I will explain more in a moment, the exemption of the 
Universal Service Fund from the Anti-Deficiency Act is about to expire. 
If it is not extended soon, the programs supported by the Universal 
Service Fund will be in jeopardy.
  The amendment today pertains specifically to the Universal Service 
Administration Company, or USAC, the private, nonprofit corporation 
that Congress created to administer the USF. Both this amendment and S. 
241 are very similar to S. 2994, a bill that I introduced during the 
108th Congress and that was passed right before adjournment as part of 
a larger telecommunications package, H.R. 5419. That bill temporarily 
exempted USAC from complying with new, arbitrarily imposed accounting 
rules that had severely disrupted the E-Rate program and threatened to 
cause huge spikes in consumers' telephone bills. Many will recall that 
hundreds of millions of dollars in E-Rate funding for schools and 
libraries stayed unissued for months because of the accounting rule 
change, and immediate action was necessary to resolve the problem.
  According to USAC's Federal regulators, these new accounting rules 
needed to be imposed to ensure that the USF was compliant with the 
Federal Anti-Deficiency Act, a law which prevents Government agencies 
from incurring financial obligations beyond the amount that has been 
appropriated to them by Congress. However, USAC, in administering the 
USF, does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. Rather, the 
USF is funded by a regular disbursement, on a more or less monthly 
basis, of moneys derived from a surcharge placed on the revenue 
generated from interstate telephone calls. The existence of this 
predictable revenue stream negates any of the risks and concerns that 
the Anti-Deficiency Act was designed to prevent.
  After government accounting rules were imposed on USAC last year, the 
entire E-Rate program was frozen. On the eve of the start of the school 
year, this program--which has enabled 93 percent of schools and 
libraries in the country to hook up to the Internet--was unable to 
review and act upon the funding recommendations of thousands of 
applicants. Many recipients of E-Rate funding actually shut off their 
Internet connections because they had no money available to maintain 
service. In order to alleviate this problem, Congress decided last fall 
to exempt the USF from the Anti-Deficiency Act for 1 year until a 
permanent solution to this problem was found. Senator Rockefeller and I 
decided to pursue a 1-year exemption in order to ensure speedy passage 
of the legislation before adjournment, so that schools and libraries 
could receive their funding again. Today's legislation provides a 
second extension of the exemption until a permanent solution is found.
  Clear precedent exists for such an exemption. Numerous other Federal 
programs already are exempt from complying with the Anti-Deficiency 
Act, including the National Park Service and the Conservation Trust. 
Moreover, an exemption is the rational solution to ensure that this 
problem does not continue to recur. As I previously mentioned, an 
exemption is particularly appropriate in this instance because the USF 
has a funding mechanism different from most Federal programs. The USF 
functioned very well for many

[[Page S10073]]

years utilizing the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles used by 
the entire American business world. Trying to engraft special 
government rules onto USF is akin to forcing a square peg into a round 
hole. And the result would be another stoppage in E-Rate--and likely 
the USF Rural High Cost Fund as well--and also a spike in the USF 
surcharge on consumers' telephone bills.
  Last year we undertook a bipartisan effort among members on the 
committees of jurisdiction in both Houses of Congress to enact a 
temporary exemption for the USF from unnecessary, burdensome 
regulations. In undertaking that effort we worked closely with the 
Federal Communications Commission, and enjoyed widespread support among 
the telecom industry, educators, and State and local governments. The 
temporary extension that we worked so hard to pass has almost expired. 
We must extend the exemption 1 more year so that the Universal Service 
Fund can continue to support rural consumers, schools, libraries, 
hospitals and low-income households.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that 
following the disposition of the Lieberman amendment, the bill be read 
a third time, and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill 
with no intervening action or debate; provided further that the 
amendment to the title then be agreed to, the Senate then insist on its 
amendment, request a conference with the House, and the Chair be 
authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the first vote there 
be 2 minutes equally divided between the votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, only to 
say that as we move to the closing of this bill, I want to thank 
Senator Shelby and his staff for all the many courtesies. It has been 
an outstanding way to move this bill.
  I do not object to the Senator's request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to suspend the rules for 
the consideration of amendment No 1678. The yeas and nays have been 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune) would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. DURBIN, I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 234 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                                NAYS--52

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Corzine
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Thune
     Vitter
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the ayes are 43, the nays are 
52. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, not having voted in the 
affirmative, the motion to suspend rule XVI pursuant to notice 
previously given in writing is rejected. The point of order is 
sustained and the amendment falls.
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                                 CSTARS

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an 
important project being undertaken by the University of Miami: The 
Center for Southeastern Tropical Advanced Remote Sensing, or CSTARS. 
This state-of-the-art system will perform real-time analysis from 
multiple satellites of the ocean, atmosphere, environment and weather 
around the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean and the Southeastern U.S.
  Every year, Florida and the entire Southeast must prepare itself for 
hurricane season. People around the Nation and the world have seen the 
devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana, Alabama and 
Mississippi. The images we are seeing daily on television are horrific 
and greatly disturbing, and we all are hurting for the victims of this 
tragedy. Last year, four hurricanes hit Florida within 5 weeks, causing 
billions in damage, which we are still digging out of. Many scientists 
predict that we are seeing the beginning of 20 to 30 years of storms of 
this magnitude.
  The information available through CSTARS will greatly enhance our 
ability to monitor storms and the conditions in which they develop by 
observing ocean temperatures, wind speed and air pressure. After 
storms, CSTARS can provide rapid assessments of urban and coastal 
infrastructure and coastline damage. Programs like CSTARS are vital for 
states that regularly have to prepare for these storms and recover from 
the damage left in their wake.
  Additionally, CSTARS can assist our comprehension of inland water 
levels, pollution, vegetation growth, coastal erosion, ocean currents, 
volcanic activity and much more. It is a deserving program, and I hope 
that this Senate is able to find the funds necessary to support it.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to my colleague from Florida that I understand 
the importance, to the Gulf states and the Nation, of providing funding 
for research and analysis of weather systems. The Senator from Florida 
has been a leader on this issue. While in these tight budget times, we 
are unable to fund every worthy program, I will continue to work with 
him to ensure that our Nation has the very best research available to 
understand hurricanes and other environmental concerns.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
knowledge of this issue and her readiness to work with me on it.


               Virginia Key Marine Life Science Building

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an 
important project by both NOAA and the University of Miami.
  Virginia Key, FL is the home of two important NOAA programs dealing 
with the oceans and fisheries and the home to the University of Miami 
Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. Because of their 
proximity, overlap in focus, and the quality of the research at both 
NOAA and the Rosentiel School, the two have developed a close, mutually 
beneficial working relationship.
  As the Rosentiel School has grown in prominence it has also grown in 
size to over 500 professors, graduate students, researchers and staff, 
and can no longer fit in its current facilities. The school had 
considered relocating, but moving away from Virginia Key would weaken 
the relationship between it and NOAA. That is why last year Congress 
found it appropriate to pass a bill authorizing NOAA to grant land to 
the University of Miami to construct a new Marine Life Science Center 
in Virginia Key.
  This new center would be home to both the Rosentiel School and NOAA 
staff, allowing their collaboration to continue and to grow. The 
research performed on marine habitats, fishery

[[Page S10074]]

economics, ocean chemistry and tropical meteorology will be brought 
together in a modern facility where it can be presented and shared.
  Currently, planning is underway to develop this center, and I believe 
we should assist NOAA and the University of Miami with the design and 
schematic plans of this joint facility. Once design plans are in place, 
the University of Miami plans to finance the building construction 
through non-Federal funds. Once completed, up to 50 percent of the 
space will be used by NOAA.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. It is wonderful to see collaboration between the 
Federal Government and our Nation's top universities, and we should 
support those efforts whenever possible. In these tight budget times, 
it is difficult to fund every deserving project such as this one. I 
will work with the Senator from Florida so that we can find ways to 
further partnerships like these.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her 
assistance and I look forward to working with her.


                       PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for the remarkable crime-prevention results from the President's 
Project Safe Neighborhoods initiative. We must ensure that adequate 
appropriations continue to fully support this productive crime-fighting 
effort.
  I am concerned that the appropriations bill we are considering today 
makes no provision for the State and local grant program of Project 
Safe Neighborhoods, an important component of the President's 
initiative, and I am not alone. A number of our colleagues share my 
concern that this important program for fighting crime in our streets 
and in our neighborhoods should be funded adequately.
  I am pleased that my friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, joins me 
today. Does the Senator share this concern?
  Mr. SESSIONS. Yes I do, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Texas. In Alabama, we have enjoyed great successes from the 
implementation of Project Safe Neighborhoods and its State and local 
grant program for which full funding is important. What would represent 
sufficient funding for this important program?
  Mr. CORNYN. The President requested in his budget $73,800,000 for 
State and local grants. And according to the Department of Justice, in 
order for Project Safe Neighborhoods to continue as a flagship gun 
crime reduction initiative, the $73.8 million dedicated to the Project 
Safe Neighborhoods State and local grant program, is essential.
  The State and local grants are critical to the success of the 
President's Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The grants support the 
removal from our streets and our neighborhoods of these criminals who 
use guns to carry out their crimes.
  The idea did not start in Washington. Indeed, the first program of 
its kind saw enormous success in Richmond, VA, where crime was 
significantly reduced as gun crime prosecutions increased 
substantially.
  When I was Attorney General of Texas, I joined with then-Governor 
Bush to launch Texas Exile, modeled after Richmond's Project Exile. 
This Texas program also met with extraordinary success, providing local 
prosecutors the funds necessary to get more than 2,000 guns off the 
streets, and to issue more than 1,500 indictments for gun crimes. This 
resulted in almost 1,200 convictions during the first 3 years of the 
program's existence.
  When President Bush came to Washington, he built upon our success in 
Texas by making Project Safe Neighborhoods one of his top priorities. 
He launched the Project Exile program nationally, providing desperately 
needed resources to combat gun-related crimes to jurisdictions 
throughout our country.
  In the short time this initiative has been up and running, the 
results have been astonishing. Project Safe Neighborhoods' prosecution, 
prevention, and deterrence efforts have helped fuel historical lows in 
gun crime across America as well as a 30-year low in the violent crime 
victimization rate. Over the past 4 years, Federal gun crime 
prosecutions have increased by 76 percent and virtually all of these 
criminals spend time in prison. For example, 94 percent of those 
originally charged with a Federal gun crime received prison terms in 
fiscal year 2004.
  The administration has devoted over $1.3 billion to implement Project 
Safe Neighborhoods since its inception in 2001. These funds have been 
used to hire almost 200 new Federal prosecutors dedicated to gun crime 
and to provide grants to hire approximately 540 new State and local gun 
prosecutors. The additional Federal funding for these State and local 
gun prosecutors, as well as the associated community outreach efforts 
and other initiatives are critical to the success of the program and to 
the national reduction of violent crime.
  As the Senator mentioned, the program as implemented in Alabama has 
enjoyed significant successes, isn't that right?
  Mr. SESSIONS. That is absolutely right. In fact, in 2002, all of the 
U.S. Attorney's Offices in Alabama kicked off Alabama ICE, which stands 
for Isolate the Criminal Element. It is a partnership among Federal, 
State, and local law enforcement officials designed to help get guns 
out of the hands of convicted felons.
  As an example, the number of indictments for the Middle District of 
Alabama is expected to reach 110 by the end of this fiscal year, up 
from 15 in 2001. The program allows law enforcement to charge convicted 
felons with felonies through the Federal court system if found in 
possession of a gun, or in possession of a gun during violent or drug 
trafficking crimes. If charged at the State level, a convicted felon 
would likely be charged with a misdemeanor if found in possession of a 
gun.
  And the results have been exceptional. As I said, Alabama ICE was 
first implemented in Alabama in April 2002. During the first 11 months 
of 2003, the number of violent crimes in Montgomery showed significant 
decreases. Criminal homicides decreased 45 percent, robberies 10 
percent, aggravated assaults 16 percent, and domestic violence 
aggravated assaults 43 percent.
  I know the Senator must have countless examples from his home State 
of Texas; isn't that right?
  Mr. CORNYN. Examples from my home State of Texas clearly demonstrate 
that Project Safe Neighborhoods is working. Consider:
  The Northern District of Texas has shown a 31 percent increase in the 
number of Federal gun cases opened in 2004 over 2003. The Project Safe 
Neighborhoods Task Force continues to work harmoniously and effectively 
in contributing to the reduction of gun-related crimes citywide and in 
the targeted neighborhoods.

  PSN prosecutions in the Northern District of Texas have targeted some 
of the worst gun offenders, and have resulted in safer neighborhoods 
within the district. For example, in August 2002, the Dallas Division 
coordinated a long-term gang investigation under the PSN Program with 
the ATF and the Dallas Police Department. The investigation resulted in 
two separate indictments charging 18 gang members with being involved 
in a drug trafficking conspiracy, crack cocaine, along with other 
street gang members.
  And the efforts of the Western District of Texas to energize Project 
Safe Neighborhoods through effective partnering with State and local 
law enforcement are demonstrated most clearly by their impressive 
prosecution statistics. They have seen a 74 percent increase in 
prosecutions from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2004, and a 13 
percent increase in the past fiscal year.
  That is why I am so concerned that there was no funding included in 
this appropriations bill. While I appreciate any effort this body might 
take to embrace fiscal discipline, I question the efficacy of choosing 
to eliminate a program that is saving thousands of lives nationwide as 
opposed to many other less critical projects and programs.
  I am pleased the senior Senator from Alabama, who has been working so 
hard on this Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill is here with 
us. I ask Senator Shelby, is this something that he believes we can 
work to resolve in conference given the difficulty in making changes at 
this time?
  Mr. SHELBY. I would like to thank the Senator from Texas and my 
colleague from Alabama for their willingness to work with me to resolve 
their

[[Page S10075]]

concerns. This program, as with many programs for which we struggle to 
find adequate funding, is important. This program received no 
appropriation in the fiscal year 2005 conference report. I understand 
related funding has been appropriated in the House CJS bill and I will 
work to address the concerns of my colleagues as the appropriations 
process moves forward.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to thank my friend from Alabama and I 
offer any assistance that I or my staff can give as you work on this 
important issue for us.
  Mr. CORNYN. I would like to thank my colleagues. The Project Safe 
Neighborhoods program serves as a model of coordinated Government 
efforts, with Federal, State and local governments sharing the burden 
of prosecuting criminals and coordinating their resources to do so. At 
a time when some Federal agencies are struggling to coordinate 
efficiently with State and local governments, the Project Safe 
Neighborhoods program serves as a model of efficiency and 
effectiveness.
  I appreciate that Senator Shelby points out that the State and local 
grant program received no appropriation in fiscal year 2005, an 
unfortunate reality that gives me even greater concern about the future 
of the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. It is now even more critical 
that in conference we find the funds necessary to continue this program 
that so clearly has reduced rates of violent crime and victimization 
across our country.


   National Waterborne disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness 
                                Program

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today to engage my friend, the 
Senator from Maryland who serves as the ranking member of the newly 
formed appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science, 
in a colloquy regarding a program of national importance, and its 
inclusion in the fiscal year 2006 CJS appropriations bill. I thank my 
friend for her service in this body and for her tireless and passionate 
work on this bill. I particularly want to thank her for showing support 
for several projects of significant importance to New York State. The 
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has left much of the gulf region under 
toxic floodwaters. I would like to secure funding for a National 
Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness Program based 
at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center in Elmira, NY. This waterborne 
disease recognition program has been funded by the EPA for the past 3 
years but was not included in the President's fiscal year 2006 budget. 
Funding for this important program through NOAA will be essential for 
ongoing disaster relief efforts in the gulf region, as well as 
preparedness efforts for future natural disasters or water terrorism 
events.
  It is obvious that there will be long-term medical and public health 
challenges ahead for the gulf region resulting from the massive water 
contamination event associated with Katrina. The medical risks for the 
gulf residents and first responders will include gastrointestinal 
syndromes resulting from waterborne exposure to biological agents such 
as Hepatitis A, E. coli from fecal contamination, and waterborne 
parasites. Exposure to a diverse array of toxic chemical contaminants 
from industrial sites, oil and gas installations, and household 
chemicals may lead to long-term health effects yet to be determined. 
This National Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster Preparedness 
Program is a one-of-a-kind program that has a proven track record of 
delivering high-quality, cost-effective educational interventions to 
communities throughout the United States, addressing waterborne disease 
recognition, natural disaster preparedness, and water terrorism 
readiness.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. We have all become aware of the dangers of exposure to 
contaminated water and the health risks to residents, first responders 
and volunteers. Many challenges lay ahead, as flooded gulf communities 
continue to pump out this contaminated water as we speak.
  Mr. SCHUMER. The National Waterborne Disease Recognition and Disaster 
Preparedness Program based at the Arnot Ogden Medical Center is 
uniquely situated to address these challenges. This program will assist 
Federal disaster response efforts by providing technical assistance to 
the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, CDC, and Department of 
Defense regarding water quality management, waterborne diseases, and 
the health effects of water contamination. It also provides educational 
training and support for local and regional healthcare providers to 
enhance accurate diagnosis and management of people with exposure to 
waterborne agents. I am hopeful that as the CJS appropriations bill 
moves forward that we may work together to see if this important issue 
can be addressed in conference.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator from New York for bringing this 
program to my attention and I will work with him to find ways to 
further this important program.


                    Noaa's National Weather Service

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. The people of Florida and the nation owe 
NOAA's National Weather Service a debt of gratitude for their work last 
year predicting the four hurricanes that hit Florida and the southeast 
and this year for their work predicting Hurricanes Dennis and Katrina. 
The National Weather Service website had more than 9 billion hits 
during the four storms last year. That site provided vital information 
to the people of Florida as they prepared their homes and evacuated 
their families from the path of the hurricanes. For these reasons, I 
want to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the 
Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill, Senators Shelby and 
Mikulski, for working with me to ensure that the National Weather 
Service's ability to continue to provide the American people with 
weather forecasts and warnings through the internet and other sources 
will not be undermined or limited. I agree with the chairman of the 
Senate Subcommittee on Disaster Preparedness and Prediction, Senator 
DeMint, that the National Weather Service deserves an ``A'' for its 
predictions about Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. SHELBY. I agree with the Senator from Florida. NOAA's National 
Weather Service has the unique expertise and responsibility to provide 
the nation with general weather and flood warnings and forecasts to 
protect life and property. The National Weather Service shall have the 
continued flexibility to disseminate these warnings and forecasts in 
all formats necessary to ensure timely delivery to the taxpayers. 
Furthermore, I want to commend the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration for their exceptionally accurate Katrina forecasts.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Let me be clear, I am absolutely opposed to efforts to 
privatize the weather service. The National Weather Service must 
continue to provide forecasts and warnings through its website and 
other sources without limitation. The National Weather Service provides 
critical information to our citizens and saves lives and livelihoods 
and it must continue to do so.


                      National Science Foundation

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, as a fiscal conservative there are very 
few areas in which I believe Federal funding should be increased. One 
of those few areas, however, is that of the National Science 
Foundation.
  Funding of the National Science Foundation should be a national 
priority.
  Congress established the National Science Foundation in 1950 with the 
broad mission ``to promote the progress of science; to advance the 
national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national 
defense.'' In this capacity, NSF plays a critical role in underwriting 
basic research at colleges, universities, and other institutions 
throughout our Nation.
  Basic research supported by NSF in chemistry, physics, 
nanotechnology, genomics, and semiconductor manufacturing has brought 
about some of the most significant innovations of the last 20 years.
  For example, the World Wide Web, magnetic resonance imaging and fiber 
optics technology all emerged through basic research projects that 
received NSF funding.
  Research supported by NSF accounts for approximately 40 percent of 
non-life-science basic research at U.S. academic institutions while 
representing less than 4 percent of the Federal funding for R&D. 
Support for NSF's efforts to fund basic research is particularly 
important due to the impact of such research on innovation and global 
competitiveness.

[[Page S10076]]

  To remain globally competitive in the 21st century, the United States 
must continue to lead the world's innovation. Innovation fosters the 
new ideas, technologies, and processes that lead to better jobs, higher 
wages and a higher standard of living. While innovation is the key to 
the future, basic research is the key to future innovation. And today, 
the future of basic research appears vulnerable.
  Over the last 30 years, Federal funding in support of basic research 
has remained flat in constant dollars and decreased by 37 percent as a 
share of GDP. Especially given increased competition from nations like 
China and India, failure to support the NSF and basic research creates 
a serious long-term risk for our nation. U.S. competitiveness in global 
markets and the creation of good jobs at home rely increasingly on the 
cutting edge innovation that stems from high-risk basic research. U.S. 
technological leadership, innovation, and jobs of tomorrow require a 
commitment to basic research funding today.
  Congress approved and President Bush signed the National Science 
Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. That Act authorized funding for 
NSF at appropriate levels, but funding for NSF has consistently lagged 
behind the amounts authorized. In fiscal year 2005, NSF received 
funding that was approximately $2 billion less than authorized. In 
fiscal year 2006, we are considering funding NSF at levels 
approximately $3 billion less than authorized.
  As we consider funding priorities on the CJS bill and in the future, 
I urge the chairman, ranking member, and my fellow colleagues to make 
it a priority to fund NSF and to support increased basic research.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Nevada and 
recognize the importance of the basic research done through NSF. I 
share his interest in basic research funding and look forward to 
working with him to strengthen our Nation's capabilities through basic 
research.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I thank the chair and the ranking member for their 
leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working with both 
of them on promoting the basic research done at NSF in our country.


                         stem education funding

  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned about the status of 
science education funding in the Commerce, Justice, and Science 
appropriations bill. I commend Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member 
Mikulski of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee for their hard work on this bill. With full recognition of 
the challenging task they have faced in ensuring adequate funding for 
so many needed projects, I am compelled to take a moment to address a 
growing crisis in America.
  The educational programs for the STEM disciplines--science, 
technology, engineering, and mathematics--are essential for America's 
future competitiveness and are severely underfunded. As a result, 
America's STEM education is falling behind. United States international 
test scores in science and mathematics remain unacceptably low. At the 
same time, countries in Europe and Asia are investing crucial resources 
into their own research and education infrastructure to ensure future 
world market success. These factors combine to make American businesses 
look to move overseas for high-tech workers, outsourcing our jobs and 
our competitiveness.
  This problem is multi-faceted. We have to provide today's teachers 
with the skills and materials they need to teach these disciplines 
well. We have to attract new teachers to the field--the teachers of 
tomorrow. We have to research ways to teach science and math to find 
out how this material is best learned and how interest in these fields 
is best promoted. It is in the best interest of our Nation to address 
each of these issues and it will require a greater investment on the 
part of our Federal Government.
  Unfortunately, in too many ways, we seem to be pointed in exactly the 
wrong direction. I find it especially troubling that the National 
Science Foundation's Education and Human Resources Directorate has seen 
significant setbacks in the fiscal year 2006 proposed budget.
  The Math and Science Partnership Program, which awards competitive 
grants to build a bridge between higher education and K-12 math, 
science, and engineering educators has achieved excellent results and 
has endeavored to improve learning in mathematics and science for all 
K-12 students. For fiscal year 2006, we are seeing this highly 
successful program slowly phased out of NSF. I would like to thank the 
chairman and ranking member of the committee for providing an 
additional $4 million above the request by the President, but also note 
that in the past 2 years more than half of the funding for this program 
has been cut, from $139 million 2004 to the $64 million proposed in 
this bill for fiscal year 2006.
  Furthermore, the Research, Evaluation, and Communication, REC, 
division, which works to increase the number of students obtaining 
college degrees in STEM and to support educational research projects on 
college degree attainment in STEM, has also been cut. Results from REC 
research areas such as physics education have led to teaching methods 
that more than double the information learned and retained by our 
college students when compared with traditional methods. But REC has 
been cut from $60 million in 2005 to a mere $33.8 million in this 
proposal.
  These are just a few examples, but it is not the entire story. Taken 
as a whole these cuts are extremely troubling because they will have 
long-lasting impacts.
  I ask that both the chairman and the ranking member of the Commerce, 
Justice and Science Appropriations Committee work to protect and 
increase STEM education funding in conference.
  This is not a partisan issue. It is the future of our country and the 
success of our children that concerns me, and, I trust, concerns my 
colleagues as well.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I share the views of my colleague from 
Colorado. Money is tight, but our future competitiveness as a nation 
hangs on our ability to educate our future scientists and engineers.
  It is important to make sure that we encourage our children to take 
interest in science, technology, engineering and math. It is important 
to make sure we provide our teachers with the appropriate tools and 
training so our children will keep that interest. And it is important 
to research how our students learn science, and to research the best 
ways to teach them these disciplines.
  I would like to see science education funding returned to at least 
last year's levels and will work toward that goal in conference.
  I respectfully join the Senator from Colorado and also ask the 
Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations 
Subcommittee to help me reach that goal.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues from Colorado and 
Maryland and recognize the importance of their interest in funding 
science education. I share their interest in supporting education 
funding at NSF and will work to find opportunities for science 
education funding during conference.
  Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I thank the chair and the ranking member 
for their leadership on this legislation, and look forward to working 
with both of them on promoting and improving science education in our 
country.


                          aeronautics funding

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I would like to engage my colleague, 
Chairman Shelby in a colloquy on the state of our government's funding 
for aeronautics research and development and the importance of the 
discipline to our Nation's national security and economic 
competitiveness.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would be happy to do so.
  Mr. ALLEN. As my colleague from Alabama may know, aeronautics 
research at NASA has played an integral role in our country's unrivaled 
military air power and until recently, our dominance of the commercial 
aviation market. Specifically, NASA engineers have developed 
innovations such as shaping for stealth; multi-axis thrust vectoring 
exhaust nozzles integrated with aircraft flight-control systems; fly-
by-wire flight control technologies; high-strength and high-stiffness 
fiber composite structures; and tilt-wing rotorcraft technology. These 
breakthroughs have contributed to American security and economic 
prosperity.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I understand Senator Allen has had a long-

[[Page S10077]]

time interest in this issue and appreciate the point he is making with 
regard to the benefit of aeronautics research and development to our 
national defense and our economy.
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank my colleague and would further argue that 
aeronautics is a vital and important science to our country. The U.S. 
aerospace and aviation industry employed 2 million workers in 2001. 
These workers earn incomes that are 35 percent higher that the average 
income in the U.S. Further, despite a recent decline in market share, 
U.S. commercial aviation is one of the few areas of U.S. manufacturing 
where we actually have a positive balance of trade.
  Mr. SHELBY. I would tell my colleague I agree that we must find ways 
to support sciences and disciplines that contribute positively to the 
United States trade relationship with its partners.
   Mr. ALLEN. Yet, even as our national security and economy are 
dependent on the breakthroughs in aeronautic research and developments, 
in recent years, NASA has significantly reduced its investment in this 
vital science. The administration's 2006 budget proposes to cut over 
$700 million out of NASA's aeronautics budget over the next 5 years. 
That will reduce the effective levels of NASA's aeronautic investment 
to about half the level it is today--and today's level is about half 
the level which existed--adjusted for inflation--that the U.S. made 
just a decade ago.

  Moreover, the President's budget called for eliminating NASA's entire 
``vehicle systems'' program--the very initiative that over the last 
five decades has provided major technology advances that have been used 
on every major civil and military aircraft over that period of time.
  The last two administrations have consistently reduced NASA's 
aeronautics funding and allowed a valuable competency and the human 
resource to atrophy and now the U.S. is second to the Europeans in 
aircraft sales.
  I would like to point out that there have been a number of well 
researched, thoughtful reports on the importance of aeronautics 
research to our economic and national security. The National Institute 
of Aerospace recently released a comprehensive study that outlines 
priorities and funding requirements to meet the challenges we face from 
foreign competition and realize the innovations and breakthroughs of 
the future. Specifically, the report finds that NASA's aeronauts budget 
requires an average 5-year increase of $885.5 million over the fiscal 
year 2005 levels. This proposed budget would bring NASA's aeronautics 
programs back to 1998 levels when factoring inflation. Further, the NIA 
report finds that NASA is uniquely suited to carry out this kind of 
research, given its vast infrastructure and world-class. Importantly, 
the report follows by noting that the outcome of aeronautics research 
adds to the nation's wealth, not to any particular aviation company.
  I understand we are not going to make those types of commitments in 
the fiscal year 2005 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. 
However the House version of this measure includes some additional 
funding for aeronautics programs within NASA. The House provision would 
appropriate $54 million above what the President requested in his 
fiscal year 2006 budget recommendation to the Congress. This relatively 
small increase would maintain aeronautics funding at levels 
appropriated in fiscal year 2005.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I am aware that our House counterparts 
have appropriated funding for NASA aeronautics programs at the fiscal 
year 2005 levels.
  Mr. ALLEN. I would respectfully request that Chairman Shelby and the 
other Senate conferees to this bill give all due consideration to the 
arguments we have made today and to the possibility of adhering to the 
House provision on fiscal year 2006 for NASA's aeronautics programs.
  Mr. SHELBY. I say to Senator Allen that I will give every 
consideration to his request when we begin conferencing this bill.
  Mr. ALLEN. I offer my sincere appreciation for Chairman Shelby's 
willingness to work with me on this issue which is vitally important 
for America's security and leadership in aeronautics innovation. He has 
been accommodating to my concerns and creative in trying to find a way 
to address our country's aeronautics needs for the coming fiscal year.
  Mr. SHELBY. I thank my colleague for his interest in this legislation 
and his work on this issue.
  Mr. ALLEN. Thank you Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I want to offer a few observations with 
respect to Stabenow amendment No. 1688 to H.R. 2862, which was accepted 
by the Senate yesterday, as modified, and elaborate on why I supported 
this amendment.
  As my colleagues well know, I have long supported the legalization of 
prescription drug importation in this country. In fact, I have 
sponsored a bill to legalize the importation of prescription drugs. 
That bill is S. 334, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety 
Act of 2005. I want to thank Senators Dorgan, Snowe, Kennedy, and 
McCain for working with me to carefully develop legislation that I 
could fully support. I worked very closely with my colleagues to draft 
S.334 in way that does not create any litigation risk with respect to 
any of our trade agreements. We achieved that in S. 334. I believe S. 
334 is fully consistent with the terms of our trade agreements, 
including our agreements with Singapore, Morocco, and Australia.
  The Stabenow amendment is not limited to pharmaceutical patents. That 
concerns me. I believe the international trade obligations of the 
United States allow us to apply a special rule of patent exhaustion to 
pharmaceutical patents as long as we respect the principles of national 
treatment and most-favored-nation treatment. I hope that the Stabenow 
amendment will be further refined in conference so that its scope is 
limited to pharmaceutical patents.
  By legalizing the importation of prescription drugs we will increase 
competition and keep the domestic pharmaceutical industry more 
responsive to consumers. Drug companies will be forced to reevaluate 
their pricing strategies, and American consumers will no longer be 
forced to pay more than their fair share of the high cost of research 
and development for new innovative pharmaceuticals. Prescription drug 
importation legislation has been stalled in Congress for far too long. 
My support for the Stabenow amendment is intended to help kickstart the 
legislative process, so we can pass prescription drug importation 
legislation without any more delay. The American people deserve no 
less.
  Mrs. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise today to thank Senators Shelby 
and Mikulski and their staff for their aid in including an amendment 
that my colleague, Senator Vitter, and I offered. I also am pleased 
that Senators Dorgan, McCain, Durbin, Levin, Schumer, Feingold, Kohl, 
and Snowe co-sponsored this amendment.
  Our amendment simply matches a provision in the House's appropriation 
bill that prohibits the US Trade Representative from inserting anti-
drug-importation language into free trade agreements. Our provision 
will remove a huge obstacle to creating a meaningful drug importation 
plan.
  One of yesterday's headlines was that the cost of health insurance 
for working Americans climbed 9.2 percent this year, far outpacing both 
general inflation and workers' pay increases, according to a nationwide 
survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
  On average, health insurance for a family cost $10,880 this year, 
with the employer paying $8,167 and the worker $2,713, the survey 
found. The total cost almost exactly matches the total annual earnings 
of a person working full time at the minimum wage, the survey noted.
  One of the key drivers of health care is the cost of prescription 
drugs. Rising drug costs place a huge financial burden on all 
Americans: from our senior citizens on fixed incomes, to working 
families without insurance, to small businesses with high health plan 
costs, to hospitals struggling to stay afloat, to states grappling with 
Medicaid drug costs. In April of this year, AARP reported last week 
that wholesale prescription drug costs rose an average of 7.1 percent 
last year. There is no way that our health system, our citizens, our 
government, and our taxpayers can continue to endure these increases 
year after year.

[[Page S10078]]

  And these rising costs have an enormous health consequence for us, 
too. Prescription drugs are not like other products. They can do 
wonderful and amazing things but only if you can afford them. We might 
be able to make do and not buy a new pair of shoes, but we cannot off 
our medicine.
  Because my home State borders Canada, I know what a difference 
reimportation has on people's lives. For years, I have joined my fellow 
Michiganians on their bus trips to Canada for medicine. What I 
discovered on my bus trips was almost unbelievable. Across Michigan's 
three bridges to Canada, my constituents have been able to buy safe, 
FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost. For example, the 
cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor is about 40 percent less; ulcer 
medication Prevacid is 50 percent less; and anti-depression medication 
Zyprexa is 70 percent less.
  Today, the majority of Americans recognize that drug importation is a 
fair trade issue. They know that drug makers already bring drugs 
manufactured in other nations back into the U.S. And FDA inspectors go 
all over the world to inspect manufacturing lines that will produce 
drugs that ultimately will be brought into the U.S. I think many 
Americans would be surprised to learn that their drugs might be made in 
China, India, or Slovakia. In fact, one quarter of all drugs consumed 
by Americans were made in other nations and brought into the U.S.

  But unfortunately for the millions of Americans who are struggling to 
afford their medication, PhRMA also has recognized that drug 
importation is a trade issue. According to its lobbying disclosures, 
PhRMA has actually lobbied the U.S. Trade Representative, our 
government's top international trade official, more than it lobbied the 
FDA, which directly oversees the industry's products. The Center for 
Public Integrity reported that PhRMA has contacted USTR more than any 
other lobbying organization.
  That lobbying has paid off. Provisions in three different Free Trade 
Agreements with Singapore, Australia, and Morocco have created new 
patent rights for prescription drugs that would make it a violation to 
import drugs from those nations. Although none of the drug importation 
bills pending before the Senate propose importing drugs from all of 
those nations, these provisions are setting a dangerous precedent.
  USTR has testified before Congress that new legislation on drug 
importation ``could give rise to an inconsistency between U.S. law and 
a commitment under this trade agreement.''
  Worse, we are also hurting the ability of citizens in other nations 
to produce generic drugs. CAFTA contains language that will 
dramatically limit millions of patients' access to these low-cost, 
high-quality alternatives. In many Central American nations, brand-name 
drugs cost 22 times more than their generic equivalents.
  This has already caused unrest. For example, HIV/AIDS patients in 
Guatemala have demonstrated against changes in their nation's generic-
drug manufacturing laws as a result of CAFTA. Does this make any sense 
when we are trying to push for more resources to fight global AIDS?
  Senators Vitter, McCain, and I introduced a bill in July that would 
prohibit such unfair language as well as make sure that consumer 
voices--our voices--are heard in free trade negotiations regarding 
pharmaceutical issues. This bill has been endorsed by numerous groups 
including Consumers Union and the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade 
and Health.
  The amendment accepted yesterday merely says that USTR should not 
adopt language creating obstacles to drug importation. The Stabenow-
Vitter amendment is a fair compromise. We need to have an open 
discussion about drug importation--it shouldn't be decided for us as a 
provision in an unamendable trade agreement.
  This amendment is not an attack on intellectual property or enforcing 
trade agreements. I am very concerned about enforcing our patents and 
ensuring other nations respect our companies' intellectual property. In 
fact, I am a cosponsor of Senators Specter and Leahy's legislation on 
intellectual property.
  Nothing in this amendment would preclude USTR from negotiating 
strongly-worded trade agreements that would protect and preserve our 
nation's patents and intellectual property. But surely USTR can 
negotiate and fight for language that isn't a back-handed way of 
blocking drug importation.
  We know that, if given the chance, we can pass a good drug 
importation bill with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress. 
The bill that I have co-sponsored with Senators Dorgan, Snowe, McCain, 
and others would reduce total drug spending in the U.S. by about $50 
billion over the 2006-through-2015 period.
  But if USTR continues to insert provisions against importation into 
our trade agreements--agreements that are supposed to help American 
consumers--then our hard work will be for nothing.
  The drug makers have a complete monopoly on those prescription drugs. 
No one else--doctors, pharmacists, patients, and employers--has the 
same opportunity to purchase those FDA-approved drugs at low prices. 
Again, only the drug makers can bring in these safe, FDA-approved 
drugs. We need to change this policy.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Cantwell 
for tireless leadership in the fight against meth. Methamphetamine 
abuse has reached epidemic levels across our country, and by working to 
ensure that we don't shift the burden onto local communities, Senator 
Cantwell has given State and local law enforcement an important ally. 
Accepting her amendment to add $20 million to the hotspots program 
brings funding for meth State and local enforcement to $80 million. 
Coupled with the bipartisan addition of $43 million of meth 
authorization dollars that Senator Cantwell cosponsored and other meth-
related funding, this bill makes an enormous Federal commitment to help 
our State and local effort to fight the meth battle. Senator Cantwell's 
amendment sends vital Federal support to law enforcement officers and 
first responder on the front lines of the meth epidemic everywhere. 
These crimefighters need more funds to help combat this dangerous drug, 
and Senator Cantwell has fought to give them resources they need. I 
appreciated her work to improve this bill, as do countless law 
enforcement officers across America.
  Mr. President, as part of H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 Commerce, 
Justice, Science Appropriations bill, the Senate has included 
comprehensive relief assistance for small business harmed by Hurricane 
Katrina. I am glad we were able to come to agreement on a bipartisan 
package and I thank Senators Snowe, Kerry, Vitter and Landrieu for 
their work and for ensuring that we could move forward to pass these 
provisions so vital to small businesses in the Gulf Coast. One of the 
key differences between the Snowe-Vitter and Kerry-Landrieu amendments 
was that the latter included appropriations for the 7(a) Loan Guarantee 
Program. Our support of the compromise Hurricane Katrina small business 
package should not be interpreted as our taking a position today on 
whether to include appropriations for the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program. 
While we were not able to address the 7(a) program today, I am aware 
that there is $79 million included in the House version of our bill for 
the 7(a) program and that we will be addressing this issue in 
conference. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that 
the 7(a) program continues to provide access to capital to small 
businesses across the Nation.
  Mr. President, we are now coming to the end of our bill. We thank the 
leadership for all the help and support they gave us, and also working 
with the Judiciary Committee to accommodate their schedule.
  This is the first time this subcommittee has come out with a bill. We 
are a newly constituted committee. I have had the chance to work with 
someone I had worked with in the House. Chairman Shelby and I worked 
together in the same committee in the House of Representatives. Now we 
are together in Appropriations. I thank him for working with me in such 
a collegial and consultive way.
  Also, his staff is outstanding: Katherine Hennessey, Jill Long, Nancy 
Perkins, Art Cameron, Allen Cutler, Shannon Hines, and Ryan Welch.
  I also thank my staff: Paul Carliner, Kate Fitzpatrick, Gabrielle 
Batkin,

[[Page S10079]]

and Alexa Sewell, who is not here today because she has a new baby.
  So I thank everyone because I think we are about to pass a good bill. 
I think the Senate can be very proud of this bill because we support 
law enforcement at all levels in our communities. We support technology 
and development and scientific discovery. And working with agencies 
such as the National Weather Service, we save lives and livelihoods.
  So I am ready to move to final passage and, once again, express my 
appreciation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I will try to be brief. We are getting 
toward the end.
  I am pleased we have completed consideration of this 2006 Commerce-
Justice-Science appropriations bill. This is not an easy bill, as 
everyone knows. With such broad jurisdiction, this bill attracts a lot 
of attention--sometimes too much--on the Senate floor and throughout 
the process.
  It is our job--Senator Mikulski's and mine, with the help of 
leadership on both sides--to ensure the bill addresses my colleagues' 
concerns and effectively supports the operations of its Federal 
agencies. We have tried to do this. I think we have.
  I thank my colleagues for understanding this and for working with us 
to ensure the viability of this bill, both here in the Senate and in 
conference.
  I believe overall this is a good bill. It reflects the priorities of 
this body, and it addresses the needs of the Nation. Some needs are now 
more urgent than others, as we know in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 
and we have and will continue to make adjustments in the Small Business 
Disaster Loan Program, the Economic Development Administration's Public 
Works Grants, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
hurricane-related programs.
  We will take this bill to the House of Representatives in conference. 
We have only a short time left in the year, as the leader keeps telling 
us. We will do our best to get a conference report to the President as 
soon as we can.
  I also offer my thanks to the distinguished Senator from Maryland, 
Ms. Mikulski, for all of her work and the work of her staff. We have 
worked together for years. Without us working together in a bipartisan 
spirit, we would not be where we are today. She and her staff have 
worked with our side of the aisle in a truly bipartisan manner, and it 
is reflected in the bill.
  I also thank Senator Cochran, chairman of the full committee, for all 
of his work and advice. It has been appreciated. I also thank the 
leaders, Senators Frist and Reid, and the floor staff, especially Dave 
Schiappa, Bill Hoagland, and my staffer, Katherine Hennessey, and 
others. They did an excellent job helping us move this bill along, and 
we are in their debt.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendments and third reading of the bill.
  The amendments were ordered to be engrossed, and the bill to be read 
a third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, in a very few seconds we will proceed to 
passage of the CJS bill. I congratulate the two managers for the 
outstanding job they have done, Senators Shelby and Mikulski. They 
patiently stayed on the floor day and night working through the 
amendments. We thank them for their efforts. It has been a matter of a 
lot of patience, in part due to the coordination with the Judiciary 
Committee and those hearings. In a few moments after passage of the 
bill, we will be turning to the Agriculture appropriations bill. The 
managers are here. They will be making their opening statements, but we 
will not have rollcall votes later today. Tomorrow we have an important 
congressional delegation traveling to the Gulf States. In addition, we 
have a delegation attending a celebration for the national day of 
prayer and remembrance. Therefore, we will not be in session on Friday. 
We will return on Monday. We will have a vote Monday, late afternoon, 
at approximately 5:30. We will alert all Members when that vote is 
locked in.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the 
bill pass? The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Thune) would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senate from New Jersey (Mr. Corzine) 
and the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeMint). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 235 Leg.]

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Coburn
     Enzi
     Inhofe
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Corzine
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Thune
     Vitter
  The bill (H.R. 2862), as amended, was passed.
  (The bill will be printed in a future edition of the Record.)
  Mr. SHELBY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the title amendment 
is agreed to.
  The Senate insists on its amendments, requests a conference with the 
House, and the Chair appoints Mr. Shelby, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Stevens, Mr. 
Domenici, Mr. McConnell, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Bond, Mr. 
Cochran, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kohl, Mrs. Murray, 
Mr. Harkin, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the 
Senate.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate has 
approved H.R. 2862, the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill providing 
vital funding for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and related 
agencies. I am, however, disappointed about the fact that this bill 
underfunds some important priorities. I am also disappointed that the 
Senate rejected several worthy amendments that would have improved this 
bill and helped to meet our obligations to the victims of Hurricane 
Katrina.
  Whether we call police officers ``law enforcement'' or ``first 
responders,'' I believe that Congress, in partnership with States and 
local communities, has an obligation to provide State and local law 
enforcement with the tools, technology, and training they need to 
protect our communities. I am deeply concerned about proposed cuts in 
Federal funding programs for our nation's law enforcement officers. I 
have consistently supported a number of Federal grant programs, 
including the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving, COPS, 
Program, which is instrumental in providing funding to train new 
officers and provide crime-fighting technologies. I also support 
funding for the Byrne grant

[[Page S10080]]

program, which provides funding to help fight violent and drug-related 
crime, including support to multi-jurisdictional drug task forces, drug 
courts, drug education and prevention programs, and many other efforts 
to reduce drug abuse and prosecute drug offenders. I know how important 
these programs have been to Wisconsin law enforcement efforts, in 
particular with regard to fighting the spread of methamphetamines.
  Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. Once again this year, 
the administration's budget proposal would have drastically cut the 
COPS Program, and would have eliminated all funding for the Byrne grant 
program. I have already supported efforts to restore this funding 
through the budget process, and am proud to continue to fight in the 
appropriations process to make sure that state and local law 
enforcement receive the Federal grants that they need and deserve. We 
should be doing more, not less, to support our local law enforcement. 
In particular, I was proud to support Senator Biden's amendment that 
provided additional COPS funds for the hiring of local police officers, 
an aspect of the COPS Program that has been dramatically cut back. The 
amendment also would have provided $19 million to help find children 
displaced by Katrina and reunite them with their families, and to 
support victims of domestic violence and sexual assault affected by 
Katrina. I regret the Senate's decision to reject this amendment.
  On the other hand, I am pleased that an amendment offered by Senators 
Dayton and Chambliss to increase Byrne/local law enforcement block 
grant funding by $275 million was accepted. This amendment, which I 
cosponsored, restores funding for these important programs to fiscal 
year 2003 levels, and I hope it will be retained in conference.
  While I strongly support the efforts of Senator Stabenow to address 
the need for first responders to have interoperable communications 
capabilities, I could not support her amendment. My colleague from 
Michigan rightly notes that making sure that all of our first 
responders can communicate with each other must be a priority for our 
Nation, and I admire her efforts to advance this cause. However, 4 
years after September 11 tragically highlighted this vitally important 
issue, we still do not have unified national interoperable 
communications standards. Without these standards, there is no 
guarantee that a new $5 billion grant program for equipment would 
create the interoperable communication system we need and that our 
first responders and communities deserve. When spending such massive 
amounts of money and such a large percentage of all first responder 
funding on this new program, we must make sure that we are spending the 
money wisely. Without standards we cannot meet this test and that is 
why I regretfully voted against this amendment.
  I am disappointed that the Senate did not adopt the amendment I 
cosponsored offered by Senator Clinton that would have created a 
commission to investigate and identify the problems with the 
governmental response to Katrina. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath 
devastated the gulf region and exposed serious flaws in our Nation's 
response capabilities. While the crisis prompted untold acts of heroism 
and compassion that continue to this day, it also revealed gaping holes 
in the Government's reaction and ability to stop, reduce, or mitigate 
the effects of this terrible disaster.
  We need answers. We need answers about what went right, what went 
wrong, and what we can do to make sure our response is better to future 
disasters. We need a serious inquiry unimpeded by political 
considerations or posturing, and I believe an independent commission is 
the right way to do that. Our Nation and this Senate have been willing 
to spend tens of billions of dollars in the last 4 years to address our 
disaster response capabilities. Hurricane Katrina showed that those 
capabilities still can't provide Americans with the protection and 
safety they deserve. We need the serious rethinking and reassessment a 
Katrina commission could provide so that we can effectively address our 
nation's critical response needs. That is why I hope the Senate will 
soon reconsider establishing such a commission.
  In closing, I want to note my disappointment that the bill fails to 
address problems with media concentration. I have long been concerned 
about concentration and vertical integration in the radio industry, 
which was one of the reasons I opposed the Telecommunications Act of 
1996 that relaxed many ownership restrictions. I feel that 
consolidation has the strong potential for limiting creativity, 
localism and diversity on our airwaves. In 1998, twice in 2001 and 
again in September 2002, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, 
published reports on the changes in the radio industry as a result of 
the 1996 act. These reports showed significant consolidation nationally 
and in local markets. For example in 1996, the largest radio group 
owned less than 65 stations; by 2002 the largest radio group had more 
than 1,200 stations.
  I proposed a modest amendment to require the FCC to update and 
provide Congress with a report on consolidation in the radio industry 
that the FCC last produced 3 years ago. I was disappointed that I was 
denied even the opportunity to get a vote on my amendment. As New York 
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's recent payola settlement shows, there 
continue to be problems with the radio industry and therefore there is 
a need for updated information about the state of the industry so that 
Congress can decide how to address these problems.

                          ____________________